Help icon

Maintenance links

Memory Alpha talk pages are for improving the article only.
For general discussion on this episode, visit the VOY forum at The Trek BBS.


Harry Kim is in his quarters, practicing his clarinet while Tom Paris listens. Suddenly, someone in adjoining quarters starts banging on the wall. Paris comments that Ensign Baytart doesn't appreciate good music, and Kim reluctantly puts down his clarinet. The two of them talk for a while about an upcoming recital Kim is putting on on the holodeck with Lieutenant Susan Nicoletti, and then Chakotay's voice comes over the intercom, ordering all senior officers to the bridge.

None of the above happens on my copy of the episode- could someone verify this? Evan 06:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen this either, so maybe it got cut out for syndication or for time in certain areas. Just to be sure, can someone with the DVD verify? Jaz talk | novels 07:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Turns out that this is from the beginning of "The Thaw"... I'll change the article. According to the notes there it was filmed for this episode but not used, so I understand how it got here. Evan 19:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Rarebit / Rabbit Edit

My scriptbook says rarebit, but the article says rabbit. I've never seen the episode, so which one is it? ~Anya Prynn | Talk 17:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

In the episode, Quinn and Neelix both say "rabbit". Izkata 01:08, October 7, 2011 (UTC)

Script of this episode Edit

Has anyone any idea where I could find the script of this episode? Anneka9842 16:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Here you go. Enjoy. :) --From Andoria with Love 01:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible Error Edit

in the 'Continuity' section of the page, someone has quoted that the episode had pointed to Q(Quinn) being the one responsible for the introduction of the Borg. But isn't this completely wrong as Janeway said later in that very episode 'you introduced us to the Borg, thank you very much.' It seems to be a mistake.Lightningbarer 19:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed passage Edit

  • Quinn dies from ingesting Nogatch hemlock, just as the famous Greek philosopher Socrates died from taking (Earth) hemlock; this fits with the fact that Quinn was one of the Q's foremost philosophers, just as Socrates was to the Greeks. Furthermore, his "students" in "The Q and the Grey" led by Q radically attempt to carry on his philosophy, just as Socrates' students carried on his. It's notable that Socrates' death was an execution, not a suicide, however he made the exact same argument in accepting his execution as Quinn did in arguing for his right to die, explained by Xenophon- "[he] actually believed the right time had come for him to die".

Moved this to here. Although it is well written, episode articles are not for independent analysis. If a production source or writer said they deliberately wrote it that way, that would be different, but I don't see that here.--31dot 19:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible Apocrypha Edit

Q mentions the birth of the universe as a hiding place he used at one point as well. i believe this refers to events in the novel q squared, but im having difficulty finding a summary of the book to verify it, and have seemed to lost my copy. can anyone confirm? 01:34, September 6, 2009 (UTC)

The only way such a mention could be in the article would be if one of the writers or producers said that they meant to draw such a connection. Otherwise it is just speculation.--31dot 02:05, September 6, 2009 (UTC)

Quinn's Corner Edit

Even though the picture is in the article, no mention of Quinn's column is in the summary. Seeing that I do not know the episode that well, could someone else flesh out Act 4?--Obey the Fist!! 20:58, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Quinn's Comet Edit

Is this the same comet that appears in Masks_(episode) (with a different hue)? -- It is, found reference in Mask episode entry. Added cross-reference to this episode.

Pointless Production Info??Edit

Are the following production info notes a little irrelevant?? I'm not removing them, but it just seems like too much information. Do we really care about the table size in the briefing room? And, if most Voyager eisodes are filmed in seven days, why is that noteworthy?

* As was typical with the production of Star Trek: Voyager episodes, a period of seven days was assigned for the shooting of this episode. (Star Trek: Fan Collective - Q text commentary)
  • The set used for the hearing in this episode was the briefing room minus its usual large table. As the briefing room table was bigger than any of the room's doors, Leslie Frankenheimer's set dressing crew had to pull out one of the room's walls to remove the table. (Star Trek: Fan Collective - Q text commentary) This episode's text commentary, written by Michael and Denise Okuda, speculates that - aboard Voyager - the vessel's crew probably either dismantled the table before they could take it out of the room or that they simply beamed it out.

Just wonderingMajorTom1 06:17, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

The second note is definitely useful, as it describes documentation of the production of the episode. As for the first note, I can understand its inclusion here as it is a specific reference to this episode, but if it had been me I would have put it on the page about the Voyager series in general.--31dot 10:54, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
I see no reason why it couldn't be on both this page and the series one. I didn't put it on the series page because I assumed it would already be there and my priority, in writing this, was to add to this page - not the series one. --Defiant 11:11, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Character reference change Edit

I see that the article now refers to the Q who took the name Quinn as "Q2" instead of "Quinn" in the episode summary. Was this how the character was referred to in the script, or was it an effort to avoid spoilers(which we don't do)? It also could be confused with the other character who was called Q2 in a script.--31dot 23:24, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

I think the idea is to avoid confusing who is who without spoiling the end of the article (which is something we should do, since our articles will contain spoilers, but generally not to themselves (least anyone figure out they don't need to read them!)), but since Q2 is already taken, how about QB, or QQ? - Archduk3 23:54, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
"The second Q"? -- sulfur 00:11, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

What about using a lower-case "q"? --31dot 00:16, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

Removed background note Edit

I removed the following note from the article:

The idea to have them hide on a Christmas Tree was inspired by the Hallmark Voyager Christmas ornament that was released for the 1996 holiday season.

Not only is the note lacking a citation, but the timing of what it suggests happened seems all wrong; the episode first aired in February 1996. Wouldn't the Hallmark Voyager ornament have been released later that year, if it was for the 1996 Christmas holiday season? --Defiant 18:35, December 22, 2010 (UTC)

Background info: strange juxtaposition of story genesis Edit

First, it's great the bg is so thorough (I think it's longer than the episode summary!). But this rattled me: soon after several paragraphs explaining how badly all the producers wanted to get Q on the show and how Piller's son helped provide a "solution", it says it was actually Kate Mulgrew who got Q (her friend de Lancie) on Voyager.

Maybe it could be reworded, for the part about Mulgrew implies that were it not for her efforts, Q wouldn't have been considered (contrary to what Piller et al. claimed). Is this an example of two sides both trying to take credit, or is it perhaps merely an interviewer's misinterpretation of Mulgrew's intentions (eg, maybe she was speaking somewhat wryly/hyperbolically)? Or maybe it just needs rewording or a note highlighting the fact that apparently both the producers and Mulgrew wanted Q on VOY. Reading between the lines, I get the notion Berman needed convincing, which might explain why the producers+Kate lobbied for Q.

I'm not trying to nitpick! It just seems confusing to me (it could be my dull mind).

Cepstrum (talk) 12:30, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

The producers and Mulgrew all wanted de Lancie and Q on the show, but were having a hard time coming up with a workable story, a problem that Shawn Piller devised a solution to, enabling Mulgrew and the producers to attain their wish. Mulgrew didn't help with the story, and nowhere in the article does it say that. --Defiant 20:23, July 19, 2011 (UTC)

Nicole de Lancie cameo Edit

According to John de Lancie's actor page here on Memory Alpha, his daughter Nicole de Lancie had a short cameo in this episode. I think this information would be worth adding, although I'm not sure who she played (The only thing that comes to mind is one of the members of the Q continuum, although it's been awhile since I've seen the episode).The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Unless she's not credited in the episode, a citation for her appearance would be required. --Defiant 20:25, July 19, 2011 (UTC)

Prime Directive Edit

By ruling that has changed the Q society somehow, didn't Janeway violate Prime Directive? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

As shown in "Virtuoso", the PD does not apply to more advanced societies.--31dot 10:10, March 11, 2012 (UTC)

When was Riker? Edit

One thing that has bothered me about this episode is that Riker is wearing his old com badge. He wore a new one in 'Generations' this would suggest that Riker was taken by Q before the badges were updated. That would be before Voyager went missing yet he seems to know Voyager is missing. Was there supposed to be a set time that Riker came from or was he contemporary to the episode and the badge was a snafu? Lt.Lovett (talk) 13:27, August 20, 2013 (UTC)

Borg mistake Edit

This article states, "This is the only episode of Star Trek: Voyager in which the Borg do not appear but are referred to." That isn't correct. In "Message in a Bottle," The Doctor tells the EMH Mark-2, "I've crossed Borg space, traveled through time . . . ."The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

I'm not sure that's exactly the same thing, as the Doctor was simply referencing what he had done before, but feel free to make the change if you wish. 31dot (talk) 11:05, September 1, 2014 (UTC)

Possible quote mistake or actor's slip of the tongue Edit

"Did anyone ever tell you you're angry when you're beautiful?"

Shouldn't it be the other way round? 16:38, May 30, 2017 (UTC)

I think that was the intended point. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 16:58, May 30, 2017 (UTC)